D'Alessandro v. Hartzel, 29 A.3d 1112

Plaintiff D’Alessandrovacationed at defendants’ Jersey Shore condo for one week beginning June 17, 2006.
Plaintiff had viewed online photos prior to arrival but had not previously visited the unit.
On entry, plaintiff dragged a suitcase and propped the inward door with her left hand, causing her to pass the threshold sideways.
She fell on a step changing elevation from the front landing to a sunken living room; the change in level was within one foot of the door.
The lighting was adequate, the area was brightly lit, and there were no prior complaints about the entrance or nearby steps.
Plaintiff alleged a design defect and lack of warning; defendants moved for summary judgment after discovery, which was granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did plaintiff prove a duty and breach given no expert proof?	D’Alessandro contends there is a genuine issue of material fact as to dangerous condition and duty.	Hartzels argue no proof of design defect or dangerous condition; no breach shown without expert evidence.	No genuine issue; no duty breached without proof of dangerous condition.
Is expert testimony required to prove design/ construction defect?	Expert proof is not strictly required to show negligence or dangerous condition.	Without expert testimony, issue is speculative and cannot defeat summary judgment.	Expert testimony required when matters are esoteric; none proffered.
Did plaintiff have knowledge or notice of the condition sufficient to absolve liability?	N/A	Plaintiff knew of the elevation change; condition was visible and obvious, relieving duty.	Plaintiff had reason to know of condition; no breach found.
Did Reyes v. Egner permit liability for failure to disclose a dangerous condition by a lessor?	Lessors owe duty under Restatement §358 to disclose unreasonable risks unknown to lessee.	No undiscovered danger proven; lessee knew or could discover the risk.	Record inadequate to prove a dangerous condition or lack of disclosure; no liability.

Conklin v. Hannoch Weisman, 145 N.J. 395 (N.J. 1996) (duty, elements of negligence; burden on plaintiff)
Daggett v. Di Trani, 194 N.J. Super. 185 (App.Div. 1984) (duty assessment; foreseeability in premises cases)
Kelly v. Gwinnell, 96 N.J. 538 (1984) (duty and standard for social guests vs. invitees; premises liability)
Filipowicz v. Diletto, 350 N.J. Super. 552 (App.Div. 2002) (definition of invitee and scope of invitation)
Berger v. Shapiro, 30 N.J. 89 (1959) (duty to provide reasonably safe premises)
Butler v. Acme Markets, Inc., 89 N.J. 270 (1982) (duty to inspect and maintain premises)
Handleman v. Cox, 39 N.J. 95 (1963) (inspection duties and foreseeability)
Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426 (1993) (expert proof and complex design/condition issues)
Reyes v. Egner, 404 N.J. Super. 433 (App.Div. 2009) (Restatement §358 duty of lessor to disclose known dangerous conditions)
Campbell v. Hastings, 348 N.J. Super. 264 (App.Div. 2002) (foreseeability and reasonable foreseeability of risk)